On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 19:06:19 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: > > What's not to like? Do you like a long emerge list aborting as soon as > > you turn your back because of a missing patch file in a minor package? > > Yes, exactly. For two reasons: > > 1. In the vast majority of cases, there's something to deal with and I > like to deal with it now. Missing patch files are comparatively rare for > me, whereas X doesn't build with the latest version of Y is somewhat > common. I'd rather mask the new version of Y and let portage re-figure > things out.
Yes, but the packages that continue have nothing to do with the error, so it makes sense to get them out the way so only the problem packages are left. Also, when there's yet-another-bloody-chromium-update and I set it running and go to do something useful, I don't want to come back two hours later to find it didn't even try to build chromium because sys-unrelated/foo failed. Also, occasionally, I find that running the update again compiles the program correctly this time. This happens quite often with KDE updates when kdm and one or two others fail on the first pass, but work next time. > 2. My over-the-top OCDness won't let me leave the bloody thing alone and > let it finish, if I know there's an error in there I feel compelled to > hit Ctrl-C and find out what the error is :-) I understand that only too well, but I find it less destructive to look at the log for the failed build while the others continue :P -- Neil Bothwick Evolution stops when stupidity is no longer fatal!
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
